Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-11-03


has formed from newspapers changed
BIZ the evidence, but whether his verdict
be based only upon the account which
may here be given by the witnesses I'M
der oath. Interpreted in this way, the
statute is not materially different from
that of the Territory of Utah, which we
had under consideration in Hopt rS.
Utah, and to which We then gave effect.
As that was territorial statute passed
by territorial legislature for the gov
eminent of a Territory over which the
United States had exclusive Jurisdiction,
il came directly within the operation OF
Article VI. of the amendments, which
guaranteed to Hopt trial by an impartial
Jury. No one at that time suggested
donbt of the constitutiOnallty OF the
statute, and it was regarded both IN the
territorial court and here rs furnishing
a proper rule to he observed by the terri
torial court in empanelling an impartial
iury in criminal case. A similar statute
was enacted in New York Mays, 1872 in
Michigan April Is, 1873, and also IN
Nebraska in 1885. The cOnstitutlOnallty
of the statute Of New York was sustained
by the Court of Appeals OF that State in
Stokes re. The People, decided June 10,
1873, and it has been acted upon with
ont objection ever since. So far as we
have been able to discover. no doubt has
ever been entertained in Michigan or
Nebraska of the constitutionality OF the
statutes Of these States respectively, but
they have always been treated by their
supreme courts as valid, both under
the Constitution Of the United States
and under that of the State. In
deed, the rule of the statute of Illinois
as it was construed by the trial court
is not materially different from that
which has been adopted 10y the courts in
many of the States without legislative
action.
Without pursuing this subject further
it is sufficient to say that We agree en-
tirely with the Supreme Court of Illinois
in the opinion that the statute, on its
face, as construed by the trial court Is
not repugnant to section 9 Of Article IL.
of the Constitution OF that State, which
guarantees to the accused party in every
criminal prosecution speedy trial 10y
an impartial jury OF the county or dis
trict in which the offence IS alleged to
have been committed. AS this is sub
stantialy the provision of the ConstItu-
ton of the United States on which
the petitioners now rely, 1t fol
lows that even if this position as
to the operation and effect OF
that Constitution is correct the statute
is not open to the objection which Is
made against it, We proceed, then, tc
the consideration of the grounds oI
challenge to the jurors-Denker and
Sanford-to see if in the actual admins
tration OF the rule of the statute by the
court the rights Of the defendants undel
the Constitution Of the United States
were in any way impaired.
The Count then gives extracts iron
the examination OF Denker by the de
fence, and says that he was challenged
for cause by the defendant, but belor'
any decision was made thereon he wa
questioned by the Court, and the Court
examination is appended.
The Court, 1t continues, thereupoI
overuled the challenge, but before tn
Juror was accepted aud sworn he wa
further examined 10y the counsel for tn
defendants. This examination is als
reprinted from the record. The Com
tuen saws that the examination OF tia
Juror by the counsel for defendant
closed aud he was examined by the a
toruey for the state, and citations al
given from the questions and answers
this examination.
The opinion continues At the clio;
of the examination neither party cha
lengcd the Juror pcromptorlly, and
was accepted and sworn When this o
, curred it is not denied that the defen'
ants were still entitled to l43 peremptoI
! challenges. Orabout that number. Whe
! Juror Sanford WAS called he was fir
examined by the counsel for the deEen'
> ants. The examination is here quoted
, At the cose of this examination on Il
part OF the defendants the juror VI
=, challenged on their behalf for caus
. aad the attorney for the State, after
= was ascertained that all the peremptol
challenges Of the defendants had bee
f exhausted, took up the examination
. the Juror. (Ihe result of this examin
E ton is given, rs is the ruling OF the Co ,
. DENYING the challenge to Overrule f
h cause and stating that, as the peremptol
. challenges OF the defence are exhauste
=. Sanford is q Juror to try the case) SO 1
+ as the other defendants are concerne
y this was accepted by both parties, Il
: Court saws. as atrue statement OF the The
IS condition Of the case and after son
h further examination of the juror whl'
a elected nothing OF importance IN co
I nection with the present inquiry, no ?
remptory challenge having been int
n posed by the State, Sanford was swo
>. as q juror and the panel was thus COZ
=, pletr. This, so far as we have been q
:. yised, presents all there is in the reco
= which this court can consider touchi
n the challenge of these two jurors by Il
= defendants for cause.
d In Reynolds rs. The United States,
b. &. s., 1lJ to 1856, it was decided by d
le court that in order to justify a reyer
le of the Judgment of the Supreme Coz
al Of the Territory of Utah for refusing
at allow challenge to Juror in a crlmr
ee case on the ground that he had form
and expressed an opinion as to the issI
n to be tried, it must be made clearly
he appear that upon the evidence
to Court ought to have found
rs Juror had formed such an op
lis ion. That he could not in law
On deemed impartial, the case must be
a. in which it is manifest that the law
of nothing to the conscience or discreet
he of the Court. Ii such is the degree
nd strictness which is required in ordin
Is, cases of wrts from one court to anot
cir in the same general jurisdiction
lat ought to be careful that it Is not all
ed laxed in IL case like this, when the gro'
nts relied on for reversal by this cour
ed the Judgment of the highest court
,n. State is that the error complained
led so great as to amount in law.to de
of by the State of trial by an impair
Jury to one who is accused OF cri
it We are unhesitatingly Of the opiI
4 q that no such case is disclosed by
nal record. ,
m. We come now to consider the OF
"a tion that the defendant Spies was C